Search Quality Rater Guidelines: take a peek inside Google

What does Google consider quality? How does it distinguish content that deserves attention from mediocre or even harmful content? As you know, the criteria often do not match what you imagine when you write an article or update a page, but there is a way to peek into the principles on which Google Search is based, namely by reading the manual used by quality raters.

The Search Quality Rater Guidelines are, in fact, the manifesto that guides the feedback of thousands of human evaluators who work to ensure the quality of search engine responses, specifying the criteria to be followed to measure the reliability of results. Although they do not directly influence ranking, here are the standards used to distinguish useful content from misleading content and the definitions of parameters such as Page Quality Rating and Needs Met Rating which, together with the concepts of YMYL and, above all, EEAT, should form the basis of any SEO and content marketing activity that aspires to organic visibility.

In these pages, we try to read the guidelines with a practical eye, to understand how they are applied and how to transform them into concrete strategies for online visibility and reputation.

What are the Google Search Quality Rater Guidelines?

Search Quality Rater Guidelines is the name of the operating manual that Google provides to quality raters tasked with examining the reliability and quality of the web pages shown in its search results, with the aim of improving ranking algorithms.

It is a document of over 180 pages that describes how to recognize useful, reliable, and relevant content, distinguishing it from low-quality pages or results that do not truly satisfy the search intent.

Do you meet Google’s standards?

Analyze your content quality, monitor ranking signals, and make better decisions with SEOZoom.

Find out more

As repeatedly stated and emphasized by Google sources, the guidelines (and the work of the raters) do not directly influence website rankings, but help to calibrate the algorithms that determine the SERPs, collecting useful data to refine Google’s automatic ranking systems. They serve to train those who have to check whether the SERPs really reward the best content in terms of relevance and reliability.

The difference is clear: quality raters cannot improve or worsen a site’s ranking, but their evaluations help Google understand whether the algorithms are working as intended. In practice, the document provides a privileged insight into what the search engine considers “quality.”

The full text is publicly available in Google’s official PDF, last updated in September 2025. Understanding the logic behind this model is useful if you work in SEO and digital marketing, because it allows you to discover the standards promoted by the search engine and thus guide your work to improve both the user experience and the strength of your online brand.

The role of guidelines in the functioning of Search

The guidelines function as an internal quality control system. Evaluators receive specific scenarios and must analyze samples of web pages, assigning scores to parameters such as Page Quality (overall value of the content) and Needs Met (ability to respond to user intent).

The results of their evaluations do not change the position of individual pages, but they become key indicators for Google. You need to overcome the myth that evaluators can manually penalize a domain. The task of quality raters is different: they are a large-scale quality control unit. Thousands of people hired by third parties around the world examine SERPs for a series of queries and evaluate the quality of the results based on the guidelines.

Their aggregated and anonymous data is used by Google to measure its effectiveness and to provide concrete examples for machine learning models. In practice, they provide the human feedback needed to train and refine algorithms, ensuring that changes to the search engine actually lead to greater quality and usefulness for the end user.

In theory, if too many anomalies emerge—for example, misleading or unreliable content at the top of the SERPs—the feedback collected helps Google engineers understand the critical issues and refine the ranking systems in subsequent updates—without intervening on the individual page or query, we repeat.

Remember: the Quality Rater Guidelines are not a document written for SEOs, but an instruction manual for raters. This does not make them any less valuable to you: on the contrary, it allows you to look at your work through the same eyes as Google. Your task is to understand the strategic principles, the “why” behind each evaluation. By reading this document, you will understand what Google means by “first-hand experience,” how it defines a “YMYL topic,” and what signals it uses to determine “trust.”

This way, you can align your content strategy with a long-term vision of quality, creating a site that is inherently useful, reliable, and, as a result, more resistant to algorithmic updates.

The history of the Quality Rater Guidelines: a public and constantly evolving document

The guidelines for Search Quality Raters are regularly updated to adapt to changes in the online content ecosystem.

The first official version was published in 2013, initially as a document reserved exclusively for raters, then made public by Google in 2015 to ensure greater transparency and allow SEO professionals to access the same criteria used to evaluate sites and content, providing a valuable resource for understanding the logic applied by the search engine.

Revisions are never sudden revolutions, but constant adjustments that reflect new priorities: combating spam, evaluating content generated by AI, and increasing attention to health, finance, and sensitive information.

The latest revision, published on September 11, 2025, added only one page compared to the previous version, but reiterated clear messages. Examples were introduced on how evaluators should judge responses in AI Overview, in parallel with what was already provided for featured snippets and knowledge panels, and the definition of YMYL was expanded—today it explicitly includes content related to elections, institutions, and trust in society, which refer to a civic dimension, so to speak.

Google itself has defined this update as ‘minor’, with no substantial changes to the evaluation methodology, but it remains significant because it highlights two very topical issues: the use of AI in searches and the management of civic information, which is increasingly sensitive.

The main points of this timeline are:

• 2013. First internal version used by quality raters.
• 2015. Google publishes the document online for the first time, making the evaluation criteria officially accessible to everyone.
• 2018. Introduction of E-A-T (Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness) as a framework for quality assessment.
• 2019. Emphasis is placed on the importance of the reputation of the content creator, especially for YMYL topics, highlighting the “who” writes.
• 2022. Evolution of the model from E-A-T to E-E-A-T (Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness), with the addition of Experience as a distinctive parameter for authoritative content, and a new definition of YMYL.
• 2023-2024. Focus on AI-generated content, information reliability, and combating sites that use spam techniques to manipulate SERPs.
• January 2025. Update with new spam specifications and revisions to the “Needs Met Rating” metrics.
• September 2025. Small but significant clarifications on the definitions of YMYL topics and, for the first time, the addition of concrete examples for evaluating AI Overviews.

How (and why) the guidelines for quality raters change

This infographic clearly shows that the guidelines are far from static and fixed, as they are constantly updated to reflect the evolution of the web and the way people read, search for, and interpret information. Each revision serves to clarify the quality assessment process and expose strategies that seek to manipulate SERPs without offering real value.

In recent years, Google has worked on three main fronts: it has refined the concept of E-E-A-T, extended the definition of spam to practices such as scaled content abuse, expired domain abuse, and site reputation abuse, the policies introduced with the March 2025 Spam Update, and redefined how to evaluate content produced with the help of generative artificial intelligence.

On this last front, the bottom line is that Google does not automatically exclude this content from positive evaluations, but requires that it meet the same criteria as text written by human authors.

Quality raters must therefore observe whether the page shows editorial review, whether it avoids typical AI errors such as invented references or inconsistent sentences, whether it provides concrete informational value, and whether it falls into the category of mass production without context. This clarifies the difference between the responsible use of AI, which is useful as creative support, and abuse that impoverishes the user experience. Added to this is a growing focus on factors such as the device used and the updating of information—a page that only works on desktop but not on mobile or that reports outdated data is not considered up to standard, especially if it deals with YMYL topics.

As mentioned, the latest update introduces other specific interventions and targeted clarifications, which show how Google is trying to monitor increasingly sensitive areas, both technological and social.

What are the criteria for evaluating pages?

The evaluation of the quality of a web page takes into account several factors that determine the reliability, usefulness, and relevance of the content. The analysis carried out by quality raters is not limited to the visible text, but examines the entire structure of the page, the context in which it is inserted, and the reputation of the site that hosts it.

The scoring process follows a structured criterion that takes into account the original intent of the content, the author’s experience, the level of detail offered, and how well the page meets a specific informational need. Elements such as author transparency, completeness of information, and the presence of relevant signals for the user significantly influence the overall rating.

The quality of the page is analyzed using two distinct parameters.

The first, the Page Quality Rating (PQ), determines the overall value of the content in terms of reliability, expertise, and usefulness. The second, the Needs Met Rating (NM), checks the extent to which the page actually responds to the user’s search, offering a clear and immediate solution. Both criteria are applied using different logic, contributing to the definition of the quality standards used to refine search results.

What is Google’s Page Quality Rating?

The Page Quality Rating is assigned through a comprehensive analysis of the page, which includes both the structure of the content and the reputation of the site and the author. The goal is to determine how reliable a given piece of content is and how well it meets its specific purpose.

Quality raters evaluate the purpose of the page, the level of expertise demonstrated, the reputational history, and a number of other signals: if a site presents misleading information, is anonymous, or does not offer clear signs of authority, its rating will be lower than pages that guarantee transparency and recognized sources.

Identifying the purpose of the page

Every web page is created for a specific purpose, and its quality is judged in relation to this objective: for this reason, the parameters applied to institutional sites differ from those for e-commerce, blogs, or information platforms.

An online store must provide detailed product descriptions, reviews, high-quality images, and transparency regarding purchasing conditions. An editorial page needs references to reliable sources, attributes that make it clear who wrote the content, and signs of the author’s reliability. A government or medical website is evaluated with particular attention, because the information provided must not only be correct, but also verifiable.

If a page does not have a clear purpose or seems to be designed solely to attract traffic without offering any real value, it will receive a lower Page Quality Rating. The same applies to content that claims to explore a topic in depth but then provides generic information without clear or verifiable data.

The role of EEAT

The importance of the signals of Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trustworthiness has grown over time, influencing the way Google determines content quality. The author’s direct experience has become a key element, alongside expertise, authoritativeness, and reliability of sources.

A technical guide is more valuable if it is written by a recognized expert in their field. Financial advice provided by a certified professional offers more guarantees than an anonymous opinion. A product review written by someone who has actually tried it has more credibility than a summary based on third-party descriptions.

The reliability of content also depends on the clarity with which information about the author is provided. Articles without references to their authors or companies without a clear “About Us” section receive a lower rating than sites that provide transparency about their sources.

Evaluation of domain and author reputation

Quality raters also analyze what is said about a site outside its own domain. Reviews, citations in authoritative sources, mentions in newspapers, and user feedback contribute to the perception of a brand or author’s credibility.

Pages that feature the names of recognized experts and have verifiable references receive a better rating than sites that do not provide clear information about their background. External links also play a key role: sources that are cited in other quality content receive implicit recognition of their authority.

If a site has a history of negative reports, deceptive practices, or unreliable information, it will be given a lower score. Low-quality content often comes from sources that do not have a solid presence in their industry and do not provide clear signs of a reliable reputation.

Errors that lower the Page Quality Rating

When a page shows signs that undermine trust and usefulness, quality raters must assign a low rating. The guidelines provide specific instructions and examples:

• Low-value content

Pages created with little or no editorial effort receive the lowest ratings. This is the case for texts copied or paraphrased from other sources, content generated in series without originality (scaled content abuse), or collections of phrases and definitions assembled to intercept keywords without actually responding to the user’s needs.

• Excessive advertising or intrusive interstitials

The document cites as a negative example pages where the main content is obscured by advertisements or pop-ups that interrupt reading. Layouts that force the user to interact with ads before accessing information also reduce the perception of quality.

• Lack of information about the author or the site

Transparency is one of the key parameters. Pages without details about the author, sites without an “About Us” section, or content without references to the source are viewed with suspicion, especially in YMYL cases, where the identity and expertise of the writer are crucial.

• Unreliable or outdated information

Another factor that leads to a low rating is the presence of outdated data, incorrect references, or unverifiable information. The guidelines indicate that misleading content or content without solid sources does not meet the required quality standard, particularly when dealing with sensitive topics.

• Pages created solely for monetization

Google includes among its examples of Lowest Quality pages that have monetization as their sole purpose, without offering useful or informative content. Landing pages that exist only to push purchases or collect advertising clicks are not considered quality resources.

What does Needs Met Rating mean: satisfying the search intent

The mere quality of the content is not enough if the page does not respond clearly and quickly to the user’s request. The Needs Met Rating examines how useful a result is in relation to the query that generated the visit.

The rating is not based solely on the relevance of the page, but on how well it provides the user with comprehensive and immediate information that matches their search intent. If content is not relevant or does not convey concrete value, it receives lower scores.

The Needs Met Rating follows a scale ranging from Fails to Meet to Fully Meets. A result receives the maximum score when it completely satisfies the user’s needs without the need for further research.

A clear example concerns pages that answer direct questions. If a user searches for “Rome weather today”, the best result is one that immediately shows the updated forecast. A generic article on Rome’s climate, without details on the current day, will be given a lower score.

For a navigational query such as “Gmail login”, the official login page receives the highest rating. For specific questions, such as “height of the Eiffel Tower,” a result that immediately provides the correct data is considered fully satisfactory.

Pages that provide incomplete information, force the user to search for further details elsewhere, or do not fully clarify the search topic receive intermediate scores. Those that deviate completely from the context of the query receive a negative rating.

Differences between desktop and mobile ratings

The browsing experience varies depending on the device used, and Google takes this distinction into account. A site optimized for desktop may be unsuitable for mobile if the text is difficult to read, the content does not fit the screen, or the interactions are not intuitive.

Pages that force the user to interact with intrusive pop-ups, have buttons that are difficult to press on smaller screens, or take too long to load on mobile connections receive a lower score in the quality rater analysis.

Practical examples of pages that get the best and worst scores

The official guidelines provide several examples of pages with opposite ratings. An institutional website that explains an administrative procedure with detailed instructions, direct links to the required documents, and up-to-date information will score highly.

Conversely, a blog covering the same topic but offering generic details without verifiable references will receive a lower rating. Pages that deviate completely from the search intent, such as clickbait articles or content created to generate interactions without offering concrete information, are ranked among the worst results.

Common mistakes that lower the Needs Met

In short, you must remember that a result may be of good quality in itself but receive a low rating if it fails to satisfy the search intent. The Needs Met Rating measures precisely how well the page responds to the user’s needs at the moment they formulate the query.

Again, the guidelines spell out some recurring mistakes that lead to negative ratings:

• Unresolved ambiguity

Some queries can have multiple interpretations. A classic example is “mercury,” which can refer to the planet, the chemical element, or the plant. If a result covers only one of these meanings without clarifying it, or if it ignores the most likely variants, the score drops because the user does not get a fully useful answer.

• Incomplete or superficial information

Many cases of low ratings depend on content that seems relevant but does not fully answer the question. For the query “Rome weather today,” as mentioned, an article that generically describes the city’s climate is not helpful: the user was looking for an immediate forecast and must continue their search elsewhere. The same applies to pages that promise a comprehensive guide and offer only a few lines without further detail.

• Outdated or obsolete content

The timeliness of information also weighs on the rating. Pages that report outdated dates, old regulations, or invalid data cannot be considered satisfactory. This is particularly true in YMYL topics, where updating information is an integral part of quality.

• Inconsistent experience across devices

The Needs Met Rating takes into account the context of use. A result that appears useful on a desktop but becomes difficult to consult on a mobile device will not achieve the highest scores. Pop-ups that cover the screen, text that does not adapt, or unintuitive interactions compromise the possibility of considering the page “Fully Meets.”

• Pages that deviate from intent

Finally, there are cases where the page deviates completely from the intent expressed in the query. This is the case with clickbait content that uses the correct keywords but does not provide any concrete answers. For these situations, the guidelines provide for a “Fails to Meet” rating, which is the lowest level on the scale.

EEAT and YMYL: two key concepts for quality raters

For Google, the quality of a page is measured above all by its ability to inspire trust.

The Search Quality Rater Guidelines translate this principle into two evaluation frameworks that guide raters in every scenario: E-E-A-T and YMYL. The first describes the standards that make content authoritative and credible, while the second identifies the most sensitive areas, where incorrect information can have a concrete impact on people’s lives.

Applying these criteria makes it possible to distinguish between pages that become a reference and those that risk causing confusion. The approach is particularly rigorous in areas that affect personal choices, health, finance, or safety, and from 2025, issues related to elections, institutions, and public trust will also officially fall within the YMYL scope.

In short, the reliability of a page depends not only on the accuracy of its content, but also on the authority of the source that publishes it.

The two Es: the difference between experience and expertise

Since 2022, the E-A-T framework has been expanded with the addition of Experience, a parameter that values the direct experience of the writer alongside professional expertise. The aim is to distinguish theoretical content from content based on concrete experiences.

A product review written by someone who has actually tested it, the story of a patient who has undergone surgery, or the description of a process experienced in the field offer different information than a generic text. They do not replace certified expertise, but complement it.

To refer back to the definitions in the document:

• Experience (Direct experience) refers to personal interaction with a topic: a review written by someone who has tested a product, a report based on a first-hand experience, or a practical guide derived from experience in the field.
• Expertise (Professional competence) refers to knowledge acquired through study, training, and work experience: a doctor writing an article on diabetes management, a lawyer exploring legal issues, or an engineer specializing in a technical field.

Quality raters then assess whether the topic requires primarily expertise (such as in the medical or financial fields, where qualifications and degrees are needed) or whether direct experience enriches the user’s understanding (e.g., in reviews, professional experiences, practical guides).

Your Money, Your Life: when the evaluation criteria are stricter

With the acronym YMYL (Your Money or Your Life), Google indicates content that can affect health, financial stability, safety, or collective well-being. Since September 2025, this category also includes civic information, from voting procedures to content that affects trust in institutions.

Quality control becomes stricter because an error is no longer just an editorial problem, but a real risk. The guidelines distinguish between two levels of danger:

• topics that are inherently dangerous, such as incitement to violence, self-harm, or crime, which require the utmost rigor. Here, the risk does not depend on the authority of the source: the content itself implies danger.
• topics that become risky if handled incorrectly, such as medical symptoms, financial investments, or safety regulations. In this case, an error or omission could have negative consequences for the user.

Based on this approach, the guidelines identify four categories of YMYL risk:

• Health and safety: this includes information that affects physical and mental well-being, from diseases to treatments, nutrition, and medications. An error here not only compromises trust, but can actually harm people’s lives.
• Financial security: This covers everything related to money management: investments, mortgages, loans, taxes. An inaccurate page in this area can lead to risky decisions or financial losses.
• Government, Civics & Society: Updated in 2025, this category covers information on elections, civic procedures, trust in institutions, and other topics of public interest. Accuracy is crucial here, because misleading information can undermine democratic participation or social trust.
• Other sensitive topics: these include content that does not fall within the above categories but can still have negative effects, such as road safety or guidelines to follow in the event of natural disasters.

Google emphasizes that not all topics are YMYL and that the assessment is not always binary. Some pages deal with topics that fall in a gray area, and in these cases, the required accuracy threshold may vary depending on the type of content and the potential impact it could have on the user.

Why Google raises the bar for YMYL content

Ratings are instructed to examine YMYL pages with particular care. It is not enough for the information to be correct: the sources must be authoritative, the authors identifiable, and the transparency maximum.

The logic is simple: an error in an entertainment article does not have serious consequences, but an inaccuracy in a medical or financial guide can actually harm the reader.

The most recent versions of the guidelines have extended this approach to cases where the content does not contain errors but lacks sufficient evidence to support the claims.

An investment tip without sources or a health article without expert supervision does not meet the required threshold of reliability, even if it does not appear to contain inaccuracies.

How to manage YMYL content

To be evaluated positively, YMYL content must reduce any margin of doubt about the authority and timeliness of the information. The document outlines some key practices:

• Clearly identify the authors and display their qualifications, especially in the health, legal, or financial fields. Content should be produced by recognized experts or, at a minimum, supervised by professionals in the field.
• Provide detailed bios with verifiable experience and tangible references. The transparency of the source is crucial: a page without clear references to the author’s identity is evaluated more severely. Sites that offer a detailed author bio, with a professional history and tangible references, have an advantage over those that publish anonymous content or content without verifiable data.
• Base information on institutional sources, academic studies, or official documents, as well as recent and up-to-date sources. Fact-checking and validation of information also matter: an article providing advice on investment strategies should be based on official documents, data published by accredited financial institutions, and references to industry experts. The same principle applies to medical information, which must refer to clinical studies, health authority guidelines, and academic publications.
• Update content dealing with regulations, protocols, or health data periodically, indicating any revisions. Sites that neglect this practice risk seeing their credibility reduced, as outdated information can have negative consequences for users.
• Maintain thematic consistency across the domain, avoiding unrelated content that could undermine its overall reputation.

A site that publishes medical advice supervised by professionals and accompanied by references to official guidelines will be rated higher than an anonymous, generic page. The same applies to civic content: voting procedures illustrated with institutional sources and up-to-date dates convey credibility, while vague and unverifiable articles reduce trust.

In the YMYL field, transparency and quality are a prerequisite for being considered a reliable resource.

AI and quality: what SQRGs really say

It is inevitable that the latest versions of the guidelines make explicit and direct references to the topic of generative artificial intelligence, which is present practically everywhere—starting with Google’s SERP!

Google makes it clear in no uncertain terms that it is not the tool with which a text is written that counts, but the value it can offer. The official document states: “The use of Generative AI tools alone does not determine the level of effort or Page Quality rating.”

Translated: AI is not a criterion in itself; it can produce both high-quality content and poor-quality texts. The difference is made by the same elements that raters look for everywhere: usefulness, accuracy, originality, and completeness.

If a page shows solid signs of editorial commitment, it is considered valid regardless of whether it has been supported by AI tools. Conversely, when verification, human review, and real depth are lacking, the judgment does not change: the rating drops to the lowest levels.

When AI lowers quality

The document is very clear in describing the patterns that lead to a negative judgment. This is the case with scaled content abuse, with mass-generated texts, paraphrases of existing sources, or template pages of questions and answers copied from PAAs and filled with superficial phrases.

This scenario also includes YMYL content constructed with approximation, full of errors typical of linguistic models, truncated or inconsistent statements. For raters, the indication is clear: these pages are classified as Lowest Quality.

The guidelines also explain how to recognize cases of copying and rephrasing, inviting raters to manually check sources. If it emerges that the content adds nothing original, the rating automatically drops.

When AI becomes an asset

The same chapter that warns about the risks recognizes that AI can play a positive role when incorporated into a quality editorial process. The example cited concerns the creation of original artwork with generative tools, but the principle applies to every asset: AI-supported content can achieve high ratings if it brings added value, verifiable data, stylistic care, human review, and the absence of typical model errors. In practice, AI can be an accelerator, not a shortcut.

Outside the document, Google reiterates the same approach: automation is allowed, as long as it is intended to help people and not to manipulate rankings. This is the policy line on helpful, people-first content: it does not prohibit the use of AI, but requires that content be designed to satisfy searchers, not to circumvent systems.

Examples and new scenarios: AI Overview and Discover

The September 2025 update introduced a chapter dedicated to AI Overview, with evaluation examples very similar to those that already existed for snippets and knowledge panels. For the first time, the guidelines provide raters with concrete criteria for judging the quality of an AI-generated response—as we said before, the evaluation must always focus on the accuracy of the information, the correct attribution of the sources cited, and the overall usefulness of the summary for the user.

The PDF contains the methodological framework: raters work on different projects and apply the same evaluation concepts to each type of content. In the so-called Special Content Result Blocks, they must judge both the quality of the block displayed by Google and that of the linked page. This is the scheme that now also guides the reading of AI Overview responses.

The implications for you: how to follow the Search Quality Rater Guidelines

Everything is SEO, we often say, and this still holds true today: even if it is true that quality rater evaluations do not directly change your site’s ranking, they still reveal what Google considers truly useful.

And today, this is no longer just about traditional SERPs: criteria such as brand authority, trust, and content consistency also shape what appears in AI Overview, Google Discover, and rich results, i.e., the entire visibility ecosystem that drives traffic and reputation today.

Optimizing a website according to the principles outlined in the guidelines means working on concrete aspects such as information transparency, source quality, author experience, and domain authority. It’s also a matter of common sense, really: ignoring these criteria does not have a direct impact on ranking, but it can translate into less trust from users and, in the long run, less relevance for algorithms.

Creating useful, high-quality content

It is not enough to write correct texts. Google considers content to be “high quality” if it has a clear purpose, develops the topic thoroughly, and immediately responds to the user’s needs. Pages that receive positive ratings have a content structure that makes them easier for people to read, with a consistent organization of topics and text formatting that makes it easy to find the most important information.

A well-designed guide does not just report generic data, but enriches the text with contextualized details, practical examples, and verifiable references.

The decisive point is precisely verifiability: if you cite recognized sources, clearly indicate the author, and provide concrete references, your content gains trust. Completeness also counts: a technical guide should include examples, data, and detailed explanations; an informative article should simplify without sacrificing accuracy.

When you enter the YMYL field, the bar is raised even higher. Here, Google expects authoritative signatures, up-to-date sources, and expert supervision. An error or outdated information not only causes you to lose points: it can close the doors to visibility.

The keyword is trust. All your efforts must be geared towards being perceived and accepted as a reliable and “secure” reference.

How to improve your site’s reputation

Your authority does not depend solely on what you publish. Google also looks at your external reputation: mentions, reviews, citations in reliable sources. A brand featured in an industry publication or by a university conveys solidity; a site that only appears in low-quality directories or forums sends weak signals.

This is why the old “forced” link building is of little use today. What counts more is link earning, i.e., creating content that others spontaneously choose to pick up, and a comprehensive digital PR strategy. Review management is also part of the game: responding to feedback and correcting critical issues strengthens your image, while ignoring negative comments weakens it. A high number of negative reviews, especially on independent sites or industry forums, becomes a red flag for Google, while active involvement in reputation management helps to strengthen public trust.

Common mistakes that compromise quality

Fundamentally, failure to comply with quality standards can reduce trust in the site and, in the long term, compromise its visibility. Some errors are particularly penalizing in quality rater evaluations because they indicate problems that directly impact the user experience.

Google is explicit: pages full of invasive advertising, created solely to monetize or lacking in value, end up among the Lowest Quality cases. The same happens if your content is unsigned, does not cite sources, or does not provide guarantees of authority.

Then there is the case of spam: techniques that aim to maximize visibility without offering real informational value are among the criteria that lead to a negative assessment of a page’s quality. This includes automated systems that produce low-quality content, excessive banner ads, and aggressive interstitials that disrupt navigation, as well as invasive monetization techniques. If a page is structured primarily for commercial purposes and does not respond concretely to the user’s intent, the Page Quality Rating may be lower.

Also, be careful with mass-produced or AI-generated texts without review. Google does not penalize content written by artificial intelligence, but it does require that it meet the same standards. If you publish an article with errors, fabricated sources, or inconsistent information, the result is always the same: a low rating and loss of trust.

From document to practice: how to use QRGs in your work

Understanding the principles of the Quality Rater Guidelines is the first step, because the real challenge is translating them into concrete actions that improve the quality and visibility of your site. You shouldn’t think of these guidelines as a constraint, but as a strategic framework that can guide your daily work, from content planning to competitor analysis.

SEOZoom tools can help you turn these principles into an operational process, allowing you to measure and improve your site’s alignment with Google’s quality standards.

• Use the Editorial Assistant to align with E-E-A-T

To strengthen the Expertise and Experience of your content, you need to ensure that it covers a topic comprehensively and answers real user questions. SEOZoom’s Editorial Assistant is the perfect tool for this: as you write, it provides real-time suggestions on semantically related topics to include, user questions to address, and the optimal structure of the text. This way, you can create articles that not only hit the search intent but also demonstrate a deep knowledge of the industry, a key signal for E-E-A-T.

• Assess authority with backlink analysis and Zoom Authority

Your site’s authority is also built through external signals. To measure it, you can use SEOZoom’s Backlink Analysis, which allows you to evaluate the quality and relevance of the sources that cite you, distinguishing valuable links from potentially harmful ones. This is complemented by Zoom Authority, our proprietary metric that gives you an estimate of your domain’s overall authority based on its organic performance. By monitoring these two metrics, you can get a clear picture of how your site is perceived in the context of the web and where you need to take action to strengthen your reputation.

• Simulate the impact on AI with AI Engine

To understand whether your content is ready to be chosen as a source by AI Overview, you can use a, the predictive tool that simulates the behavior of AI engines, analyzing your text to assess its consistency, completeness, and ability to respond to a search intent. It provides you with a simulated ranking and tells you whether your content has the right characteristics to be “citable.” This allows you to proactively optimize your pages, increasing your chances of gaining visibility in new AI-generated search interfaces.

Google Search Quality Rater Guidelines: FAQs and questions to consider

By now, you should have a clear understanding of how the Google Search Quality Rater Guidelines are more than just a mundane and tedious technical document—they are a true strategic manifesto. Applying their principles means aligning your work with a long-term vision of quality, building a site that is inherently useful to users and, as a result, rewarded by algorithms.

Non finire nell’ombra!

Segui le regole giuste per dimostrare credibilità e sicurezza: ottimizza i tuoi contenuti con intelligenza

Scopri di più

However, it is inevitable that such a dense and complex corpus will often raise doubts or concerns, both about how (and to what extent) the guidelines can influence SEO, and about their real impact on Google’s ranking mechanisms.

For this reason, we answer some of the most common questions to clarify the main aspects of the document and its use in the context of content optimization.

1. What are the Search Quality Rater Guidelines?

They are an official manual that Google uses to train quality raters, external collaborators who evaluate samples of pages according to standardized criteria. Their task is to provide useful feedback to calibrate algorithms, not to change a site’s position. Google uses the evaluation data to measure and improve the quality of its algorithms on a large scale. The latest version of the document is 182 pages long, with practical examples and appendices, and can be viewed publicly in the Google Help Center or by directly accessing the PDF released by the search engine.

2. Do quality raters influence my site’s ranking?

No. Raters do not have the power to directly penalize or reward your pages. Their evaluations, in aggregate form, are only used to verify whether the ranking systems are working and whether the results shown by Google are truly useful and reliable.

3. Does Google directly penalize sites with low Page Quality Ratings?

No, a negative rating from a rater does not lead to an automatic penalty or a lower ranking. However, if your site has features that are considered low quality—superficial content, misleading information, lack of transparency—you risk being disadvantaged when Google updates its algorithms based on that feedback.

4. Does all content have to comply with YMYL criteria?

No. YMYL criteria only apply to topics that can have a significant impact on people’s health, financial stability, safety, or well-being. For these topics, the required level of E-E-A-T is much higher.

5. How can I tell if my site is considered YMYL?

Ask yourself what kind of content you publish. If you cover topics that have a direct impact on health, money, safety, or legal issues, you are within the YMYL scope. From 2025, the definition will be even broader, also covering information on government, elections, and civic processes. In these cases, the required level of accuracy and reliability is much higher.

6. What is the difference between EEAT and algorithmic ranking factors?

E-E-A-T is a framework that helps raters distinguish reliable content from misleading content. It is not an automatic ranking factor: Google does not assign an “EEAT score” to your pages. However, it uses indirect signals (domain reputation, author clarity, source quality) to understand how credible a page is.

7. How can I demonstrate experience if I am not an expert?

Experience is not just academic. You can demonstrate it through direct use of a product, visiting a place, sharing personal test results, or creating content based on real case studies. The important thing is to provide unique and authentic details.

8. How can I tell if my page is “High Quality” according to the Guidelines?

High-quality content must have a clear purpose, in-depth information, transparent sources, signs of authority, and zero misleading elements. For YMYL topics, the threshold is higher: proven expertise, up-to-date sources, and supervision by qualified professionals are required.

9. Does Google accept AI-generated content?

Yes, Google does not prohibit the use of artificial intelligence to write texts and, in fact, it does not matter who or what writes them: what matters is the result. AI-generated content can be considered high quality if it has been reviewed by humans, corrected for errors, enriched with solid sources, and free of unnecessary repetition. Publishing automated texts without review is one of the quickest ways to slip into low-quality cases.

10. How often does Google update its Guidelines?

The guidelines are updated periodically based on changes in Google’s algorithms and developments in user search behavior. There is no fixed deadline, but each update, even minor ones, provides important clues about the search engine’s areas of focus. In recent years, there have been annual or semi-annual revisions: from the transition to E-E-A-T in 2022, to the focus on AI and spam in 2025, to the latest update in September 2025, which clarified the definitions of YMYL and added examples on AI Overview.

11. Are quality raters’ assessments the same worldwide?

No, Google takes into account cultural and contextual differences between countries. The guidelines are global, but raters work in their own linguistic and cultural context. This means that assessments take into account local regulations, user habits, and expectations, while maintaining a set of principles that are valid everywhere.

12. Do the Guidelines also apply to AI Overview?

Yes. Although the document mainly refers to Search, Google applies the same principles to products such as AI Overview, which today has a huge impact on brand visibility. In these areas, selection is even more rigorous: inaccurate content or content without signs of authority is unlikely to be displayed.

13. Do I need to update my content to remain compliant?

Yes. It is not enough to publish and forget. Google requires that pages on sensitive topics be reviewed and updated periodically: outdated medical advice or legal procedures are considered signs of low quality. Including revision dates, updated sources, and author information is a good way to build trust with readers and Google’s systems.